into the record. the mayor declared a state of emergency, making it possible to hold hearings remotely. on april third 2020, the

planning commission received authorization to reconvene through the end of the shelter in place. i'm requesting everyone's patience in advance. we have now migrated to web ex and are all new to the platform. especially me. i expert this will eliminate some technical difficulties but may create new ones. if you are not speaking please mute or turn off video camera. sfgovtv is broad casting and streaming live. we will receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. you can call 415610-this access

code will change on a weekly basis. that is one of the changes associated with migrating to web ex. when you are connected and would like to make your public comment for a particular item, please press star three to be added to the queue to speak. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is up. best practices are to speak clearly and slowly. at this time i would like to take roll.

proposed for continuance. iemenitemtwo for the health sers master plan, general plan amendment is proposed for continuance to october first 2020.

item four, eighth street conditional use authorization proposed for october first 2020. item 11 for case number 2011. they are requesting a three month continuance. that would put us on november 26th which is next to the thanksgiving holiday. we ca.i have no other items for continuance. we'll open it up to public

comment. you will be provided up to three minutes. i see one person in the queue. we will take that comment now. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm with the philippino personal heritage district. we request a three month continuance on 1145. that will allow us to have more meaningful discussion to support our neighborhood. it would allow us to coordinate to consider making offers considering the site to be sold to the city for 100% affordable housing of ground floor space for community uses and integrate cultural art that reflects the

heritage district. on the forefront especially with the planning commissions resolution. we really urge you to pass this continuance so that we can continue to make visible our heritage district in soma. thank you. >> thank you. caller, you have three minutes. >> you ready for me? >> i live and work-i am in support of this project and others like it. the city is full of sites that are empty sitting there just creating really bad atmosphere

for the city. when the city is in such need of housing, we can't continue to let these properties sit vacant and continue to block development for our community. for the better of our city, i think you should consider approving the project so we can provide more housing, thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with-i'm calling to request a three month continuance for 1145 mission street project. we requested our office, we have not heard from the project sponsor. this three month continuance is a bare minimum request we're asking to ensure residents are informed and engaged regarding this project.

we actually have to do double the amount of out reach than we used to, not all residents have the same knowledge due to sick. there's numerous back and forth discussion. we are doing all this when we are already overstretched on also providing essential care and support to residents who are heavily impacted by the pat the pandemic. we're already drowning in massive amounts of work while at the same time trying to engage residents in their community and city which they are already before sick having a hard time participating in. and now due to the pandemic, they are more isolated than

ever. also within the three months we hope we will be able to have an opportunity for to us have further discussion with the owner and how their land can be part of manifesting our community. lastly within the three months we hope to bring together the city rese residents organization commune pit together. community together. please support our request for continuance, thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, commissioner. i'm a soma resident. i'm calling to why for continuance for 1145 mission street project. it's been challenging for us residents to be informed and get involved during the shelter in

place. not all residents have adequate technology. we need to consult the city on our vision that we have worked so hard on. please support this three month continuance. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a neighbor to 1145 mission street. i was up in seattle three weeks ago. they are currently having a massive housing crisis. there's an article per the

newspaper saying seattle is permitting one hundred twenty six units for every one thousand residents. san francisco is permitting 41 units compared to the 126 unit. that is why we're having the worst housing crisis in the country. there are many special interest groups. i don't know what they are trying to explore. what they are asking is just not reasonable. three months so far, phoenix arizona, their process was approved within a day. three months, i've been watching that lot for quite a few years now. i've always been wondering why it's not being built. now i see. all these neighbors that speak

up. i'm a neighbor there and i don't see them. if they can see what's going on over there, we need the promgs s built. we need housing. let's be reasonable. let's not ask for anymore delays. let's permit this building and get it built soon. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. my name is john bloom. regarding the 1145 mission site. i think it's a great site for walking and biking. there's limited parking on the site. it seems the kind building we want san francisco to have. right now it's nothing but a big ugly hole.

it's destroyed that whole block of mission street, we need more street level retail there, create jobs, and to just create people on the street in a lively street scape. that's why i choose to live in this city. these continued delays, they just go on and on so there's some vague out reach that can happen. i think this building has four affordable housing units in it. it's a great contribution. it's hard to get things built now as it is with the corona virus. we need to let the projects move forward. we can't always sit and have endless discussion. with the addition of affordable

units- >> thank you, sir. >> hi. this is mat heeley calling. i'm calling about the 1145 mission street. i support the development there and it should go through as soon as possible. with the corona virus atmosphee we're in people are moving out of the city. as many units we can build with help that situation and create a better environment for people to afford units in san francisco. thanks. >> thank you. commissioners, oh, we have one more. >> hello.

my name is jefferson chan. i'm a neighbor to 1153 mission street. i want this project to move forward. it's been way too long. we need this building to be constructed and completed asap to enhance the mission street corridor. i saw the project design and it's beautiful and fitting for our neighborhood. it will provide much needed housing to our neighborhood with affordable units as well. i don't understand why there's opposition to this project. when they are trying to fix the building and grow. that's what i want to say. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, that will kn will

conclude public comment. the matter of continuance is now before you. >> thank you. i put my name. >> oh, you may have send to someone in particular. you need to send to all participants. go ahead. >> thank you. i put the all attendees. i'll take that note in. thank you for speaking, i know that we usually move when it kms tmove to continuance for about a

month. for 1145 mission street, i would request commissioners to also support the question of the continuance just because i also want to remind the boundaries of the cultural heritage district. with that, there has been ask. i think there needs to be ample time for sponsor for the community to enter proposal. integrating committees and be incorporating har art designs. it's in the cultural heritage district that we should also respect that request. i do move the motion as noted.

item number 11 as requested for continuance. >> so commissioner, as stated it would place on our thanksgiving break, we would need to continue to november 19th or december 3. >> november 19th. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. seeing no more requests to speak. we do have a motion to continue items as proposed to continue to november 19th. (roll call) so moved that motion

passes. i would like to remind all participates to mute your mic phones when not speaking, we're getting a lot of feedback. hearing complaints and hear windows open with cars driving by. if you would be so kind. commissioners that would place us under your consent calendar. you have one item which is considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. the item may be removed and considered at this or a separate

hearing. this is a conditional use authorization. you did receive an amended motion for this item. we should take public comment if anyone would like to pull this off of consent please request to speak by pressing star three. we will take your comment. i see no members wishing to speak. the public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> commissioner moore. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you.

the draft minutes for july 30th twenty tbent. 2020. we need to add a comment about a miss howard on the standard conditions of environmental conditions item she was supporting the continuance. i have-sorry. i have to get used to-vi ti havo call on and see if anyone wish it speak. i see no members of the public wishing to speak on this matter sm the matte.the matter is now u

commissioners. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you on that motion to adopt the minutes. (roll call) that item passes unanimously. that puts us on item seven. >> you need to make sure that you're sending it to all participants. >> it says panelists. it doesn't say the word

participants. i did that. >> okay. >> i wanted to comment on s sb1085, i'm delighted to hear the work of the board of supervisors to protect the affordable housing fees for san francisco. i would like to comment the department for the effort having held a program it has created remarkable results. i participated in the intern presentations on the 18th, 19th and 20th. their respective programs. i strongly recommend that all commissioners avail themself it the link that has been sent out

and hear the presentations. they were remarkable. there was lots to be learned. i couldn't be happier of creating a remarkable program. the topics are amazing. it would take too long to mention all of them. i would strongly direct your attention to the presentation of compliance in addition to climate resilient story map. also great interest was the idea about freight planning and housing element update and a discussion on a new use-a new land use code shares.

i hope the commission will work closely with the department to take some of these things forward and that is all my comments. >> commissioner imperial. >> yes, i agree with commissioner moore. i also saw the presentation. i want to applaud as well the planning staff and the supervisors who supervise those interns. they are knowledgeable for me. i hope that this will continue for next summer program. i know we may be facing budget cuts but i hope that one will not be cut. congratulations to supervisors and hope you can send them my regards. thank you.

>> seeing no further requests to speak from commissioners, we can move onto department matters item eight. director's announcements. >> thank you commissioners. thank you for the comments on the internship program and participating in it. i want to thank teen aw tina whe effort. many agencies cancelled their internship programs over the summer because of covid. we made a conscious effort to keep ours open. welcome back to everyone and congratulations commissioner diamond, imperial on your reappointments to the commissions. a few items. you probably have heard that

jeff announced a few weeks ago that he was leaving his position as director of planning. his last day was last week. i want to thank him for his leadership. he was definitely unprecedented times he was here. i wanted to highlight his work building our capacity around design review and preservation. i think the change changes he'se will have a lasting impact for years to come. thank you to jeff who has been the deputy director of planning for the past four years. he has taken over in acting capacity while we're taking the process to fill that position. more to come on that. our office is officially moved last week. it was a bit odd because we

didn't physically move. our stuff moved. we haven't been able to occupy the space. some staff have gone in to unpack and do some work. we're still awaiting any additional guidance from the city on how and when we'll ultimately be able to occupy the space. i do want to highlight an issue with c bi that's impacting our work as well. they were accepting permit applications electronically there were some issues and kinks that had to be worked out related to that. the limited test of applications that are able to be submitted online in their working to retool the electronic submission process to integrate it with

their permit tracking system. we hope that's up and running more robustly in the coming weeks. they are continuing to offer limited in person abilities to permit applications and will continue to process digitally those that have been submitted. we realize this is an impact, we're work withing them wanting our expertise to their processes as well as expanding our ability to set foot. our budget over this past week. there were some minor changes, not a tremend owses chang tremet we requested to change to the general fund allocation. around fees and fee revenue

because that makes up the bulk of our budget. we're maintaining flexibility by keeping some positions vacant until we get a better handle on our fee revenue. this came up the last time we talked about the budget around our historic survey work. that money remained, the funding remained in and will continue to remain. >> a question if that's okay. i'm sad to hear our director leaving. i have a question in terms of the process of hiring his position. i'm assuming that the racial social equity word that we have in terms of hiring will be something permissible. >> absolutely. it's something we're constantly working on.

we've got internal processes that we've put in place to implement. we're also working with dhr to expand the applicability of that work. but yes. >> thank you. and i hope-i wish i got to work more with director. >> thank you. >> i don't see any additional requests from commissioners.

>> i would like to announce. this is my last board report. i'm decided to tour. let's get on with it. while you were on break the board remained in session except for the first week in august. the item was prop e the educating housing stream lining program. 10% of the units be three bedroom units. you heard this item on jul july 16th. this item was unanimously recommended to the board. over the course of last three board hearings. all the items passed that allowed art activities, social

services, and covid 19 recovery activities for temporary uses. amend the controls for the zoning uses particularly in the mission usd. the continuation of the parking lot behind the theater building. supervisor's ordinance for height increases on lots of three thousand square feet or more. proposition e that would require that 10% of the units have three bedrooms. supervisors ordinance that would make technical corrections to the business district. there are several resolutions that the board passed including the mayor's reappointment of commissioner diamond and commissioner co pple.

finally supervisor mar eases ordinanc'sordinance for unmet nf affordable housing. the board heard a few appeals. it continued the appeal for 617 sa617sanchez street. it continued the 1846 grove street and c.e.q.a. appeal to september 29th. it did take up the board reservoir project. the board voted to approve the general plan of planning code and development agreement for this project. both items passed their second

read on october 19th. this project was the impetus for supervisosupervisors ordinance. the project proposed replacing a vacant lot with a historic building for office use and 24 residential units. the project was before the commission on december 12th, 2019 and receives a large allocation. the appellant argued that the department should have prepared an environmental impact report. reasonscite thcite-it was propey

performed with local requirements. this satisfies the standards qualified for c pe. the neighborhood gained two thun thirty five square feet of office use. supervisor ronan indicated this new information should have been acknowledged in the c pe, the board concurred and upheld. this did not state this would result in a significant impact or severe significant impact in the eastern neighborhood eir. they did not ask planning staff during the hearing. staff would like to note that the updated office and pdr

monitoring numbers for the mission area in the last 2020 report do not exceed the non residential projections used for the basis impact analysis eir. most spoke in favor of the appeal. a few spoke in favor of the project c pe.

that concludes my remarks and i'm happy to take questions. pafer par i doapt don't havm the board after peels and appee quitting. they approved several legacy business registry applications. legal assistance to the elderly on mission street. the medicine property on 20th street. annie's hot dogs. the house of hankiy and the wok shop. most significantly they reviewed and adopted a recommendation of

landmark designations on the history of medicine in california frequenciecalcalifor. they commented on the draft environmental impact report. commissioners that concludes our reports to you. seeing no questions, we can move onto general public comment at this time members of the public can address the commission on the agenda items. your opportunity to be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. when you exceed the fifteen minute limit it may be move today it the end of the agenda. i do have two callers.

we'll take the first one now. >> state identified toxic waste sites. local residents appeal to categorical exemptions. they allowed work to begin this week and expected to k concluden friday. apparently this action had been sankesanctioned on friday. we're in the midst of the appeal process and they are short

circuiting. by limiting environmental reviews, the proposed ordinance will have a negative impact on transparenty in the c.e.q.a. process. this could open the way for more reviews as it has in the green street project. we need a strong c.e.q.a. process in san francisco. please propose the order nansz. thank you. to help out with the minutes, i will submit these comments in writing and request-thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> hello. good afternoon. i hope are you all well. i sent in an e-mail to the commissioners and lots of the staff with photos and pictures of what i want to talk about today. i want to make two points about this project that had a dr hearing on may 18th. the first point is at the dr hearing they asked for two simple changes. protect the neighbors light and air. eliminating a minuscule amount of the expanded square footage to thi alteration. the owner and architect stated it was a family home. that gets to my next point which is this property a fifty and a

half foot corner lot sold recently upon completion just last month for nine point one million dollars. one commissioner said it was an inefficient use of space. that commissioner voted against it. this is a project that probably could have been and should have

been demolished. it was in really bad shape. unlike so many others that shouldn't have been demolished. the same thing as a dmo demoli-. and take care and be well and be safe. thank you. bye. >> thank you. commissioners, i have no-sorry. take it back. there is another caller. >> good afternoon, commissioners. neighborhood council and land

use coalition. as you are aware this past tuesday supervisor mar introduced a resolution against our most recent rena allocations for market rate homes. one thing that has not been adequately publicized about why we need to have this allocation and this quota being lowered is the impact on the market rate homes that will become the development by right. and the reason is because if san francisco does not meet its market rate goals for its rena allocation. all development for market rate housing will become by right for a meezl meesly amount of 10% tht

developers will get for affordable housing. that's exactly the type of situations we don't want to see in san francisco. by right development where the public has absolutely no input or no right to negotiate is not the spirit of san francisco particularly in these times when covid 19 has decimated communities. to those who could actually wie buy million dollar homes has already begun. i would like the commission to ask the planning department to do presentation on what happens when san francisco does not meet it's market rate goals which i assure you at this rate, it will not. how sb35 which was something that not my senator passed weeks

ago but having all market rate development to be by right. i would very much appreciate it if you would ask the staff to do an analysis and presentation on this so the public will be more aware on some nuances that are going around that are not grabbing the headline news but should be headline news. thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioners, that will conclude general public comment as i have no additional callers. we can move onto your regular calendar. item ten. the conversion of certain limited restaurants in the north beach neighborhood commercial

district. is staff prepared to present? >> yes. [indiscernible]. the proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to the special lease district convert two restaurants and allow them to obtain an ab c license for alcohol consumption. it may be obtained in conjunction with the restaurant.

as you saw in the staff report, it did inform staff of several anticipated amendments that are currently introduced. those anticipate add mendment ae to remove the conditional use to sell alcohol on site who con vert to conditional use restaurants. restaurants who participate in this program for four months. to between january first 2020 and august first 2020 for at least three months of operation. the third is to add to the ordinances findings section that bakeries may not qualify for the program. fourth is also legislation to ensure the controls in the s cd and m cd do not conflict with each other.

approve the ordinance with the following recommen rec recommen. due process for the public will still be available fo to appeal. do not-a specific prohibition on specialty bakeries from the program. assure any such guidance is in the signing of the ordinance. we believe that's the intent because the last time we spoke with their office they were try

to go decide in putting in the finding section. we want to make sure our recommendation on that was clear. the planning code does not define specialty bakeries and listing these in the code as prohibited lists challenges for implementation. amend the prob pro prohibition-y the north beach sud is set up would not actually allow the limited restaurant participate inning this program that convert it a restaurant to stay in their same location. the underlying control ns in tht district are restaurants may not move into spaces that are-that will need to be amended and

exempt from that requirement. the first recommendation is to amend both the north beach s cd and m cd to limited restaurant to restaurant. these two districts share almost identical boundaries and are cross-references in our code. any change to one district is accepted in the other code section in the cross listings. finally recommendation five is to increase the period limited restaurants may apply to this program from three month it six months after the effective date of the ordinance. not deleting the provision from the code until a year after the effective date. this ordinance has been very narrowly crafted limiting existing restaurants in north

beach to convert. the eligible restaurants will not change. it needs to increase the amount of time res restaurants have tio apply. we need to ensure these businesses have time to get all their paperwork in order and decide if they want to be part of the program. the proposed ordinance with all recommended modifications will assist certain businesses in north beach to stay financially solvent during the covid 19 pandemic. economic relief while the city continue it prohibit indoor dining. the department has been made aware of other outdoor

restaurant that's would benefit restaurants like this. consider other neighborhoods or potential expansion of this ordinance to help our struggling limited restaurants. this concludes staff presentation and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> i do have mr. hefner with us now. would you like to make some comments. you can unmute your mic but i'll unmute it for you. >> thank you. thank you particularly t particy for working so closely with our office. while complicated the relief we're contemplating here is really simple to benefit a handful of limited restaurants in the north beach commercial neighborhood district by every

measure have been operating the same way a restaurant would operate through meal service, open all day. more than 50% of their receipts come from meal districts. the only thing that distinguishing them is they are ineligible for licenses. it's a decades long history including the present where the north beach neighborhood commercial district has the heighteshighest concentration ie city. we've been talking about how to do this for some time. it's put the urgency on the table and allowed us to move forward with this relief for the limited restaurant that's are operated as bon bone awe bonifig

places. i want to highlight that includes removing neighborhood notice for this. it's so narrowly crafted that only a handful of businesses about ten are going to be able to avail themselves for this. we tried to do this via an emergency ordinance and were told because it has land use implications we had to do it through this vehicle. thank you for putting it on your calendar very quickly. we intend to move it through committee very quickly that the planning staff has made with the exception of one. right now there is a little bit at the north beach commercial neighborhood district are almost

contiguous except for about four parcels. i'm trying to understand why they are not completely coneu contiguous. i think we're a little indifferent. it wouldn't make much of a dirns difference here. i respectly ask fo respectfullyr recommendation of this modification and will be happy to take questions from staff as well. >> commissioners, we should open this up for public comment at this time. this is your opportunity to testify. you have up to three minutes and you need to hit star three in order to get into the queue. i see no members of the public requesting to speak. why don't we go ahead and go to commissioner deliberation. i will advise if any member of

the public actually enters the queue. >> i wanted to start off by putting my two cents in. thank you, this is a great way that we are using these times to benefit businesses and help them stay around. i know recently we've started some street closure nz ths in tn set district which is a huge benefit to some districts. maybe it would leak over to other neighborhoods. i would at that point be supportive of that as well. thank you for leading the way. commissioner diamond. >> this is a fabulous idea.

i think we should move as expeditiously as possible. and move as recommended by staff. >> second. >> question for staff. when you refer to similar type of conditions and other zoning districts, can you be a little more specific. >> yes, absolutely. thank you for the question.

it is an ordinance that we would support to be expanded to other small businesses especially these limited restaurants in these commercial district that's are struggling as a lifeline as was stated. >> does that mean those other districts would have to cope back through us through the same type of process. >> it depends. i believe if the commission discusses it here today and offers a recommendation as to whether or not they would like to see any future ordinance or amendments to this ordinance that would exan expand the prog, it would need to come back. if they express the support here today for the same program to be

expanded to other district as cross the city and wave their right to hear special amendments at the commission, i believe and you may want to check with the city attorney, you may not need to come back to the commission. >> i would be supportive of such a process through in fact reduced process. can we-would that require any further modifications of the draft? >> commissioners, you could just state that the commission supports expanding this to other neighborhood commercial districts if that's something you would want to include. >> i would support the commissioner diamond's motion and be happy to second it if she

would accept that ases an additionaas anadditional commen. >> yes, i accept that. >> i also accept the conditional statements. i want it restate my support. i believe throughout many neighborhood corridors we ask for this particular amendment we do not know what the out fall of covid would be. i think this particular legislation-i think that is very conducive with 50% of food being served.

>> thank you commissioners. i do see commissioner imperial requesting to speak. >> i just want to clarify the motion. the motion is to allow for commercial to limited restaurants in north beach with commissioner-is that the motion that we're-i just want to clarify the motion. >> i just want to make sure i address commissioner moore's comment about the type of alcohol sales. just to make sure we're all clear. the types of alcohol that can be sold would actually include all types that are listed in the definition of a restaurant.

we do have alcohol license types ab c biens types license types. it must be sold with a bonifide eating place. the motion i believe, i'll confirm with-in regards to this, the commission is supporting any amendment or future legislation that would expand this program to other neighborhood commercial districts city wide i believe is the solution. >> the program is limited restaurants converting limited restaurants to restaurants. >> right. without needing neighborhood notification. without needing a conditional use authorization separately to obtain an ab c license. >> i would support that as well. thank you.

>> commissioner chan. >> expand the scope of restaurants able to apply. it's consistent with our conversations with planning staff. she is concerned we're expanding the scope of this.

it's designed bonifide eating places prior to covid 19 and a couple that have actually opened in late january and february that haven't been open-that may not have been open for that full three months before. including time they've been doing take out during the pandemic would also qualify. >> thank you for that quair clarification. if the commission is recommending this be expanded city wide. i would recommend those be the same time limits. >> i think that's a conversation to be had with other stake holders. this is the time line we determined accommodates the needs of limited restaurants in the north beach district for sure.

>> so maybe that's a question for the planning department. >> this is a recommendation that you're making. so it would be up to the board to actually make an amendment to it the ordinance. i su suspect that it wouldn't be supervisor expanding it because

he would defer to the district supervisor, i don't want to speak for him. it would be a conversation at the board. >> i appreciate that clarification tclarification. it makes me more comfortable. >> okay commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded for recommendation with approval and modification that's would support this amendment city wide. (roll call).

>> it appears web ex is very sensitive to your mi microphoned broad casting. i would kindly remind you to when not speaking, mute your microphone. items eleven and twelve have been continued. this is a conditional use authorization. staff are you prepared to present? >> yes. >> great. i will make you the presenter. >> great.

>> as well as approximately one thousand three hundred and

ninety five signatures and sixty comments change in support of the proposed project. in the meantime the department has received comments. the concern is centered on hours of operation passed midnight. in conclusion the department finds it's unbalanced in-the vitality of the surrounding neighborhood. the department finds the project to be necessary and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. the project sponsor is here and has prepared a presentation. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available for any questions. thank you.

>> project sponsor if you could raise your hand by pressing star three i'll unmute your microphone. i can't tell who you are. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm excited to be here presenting my project. [indiscernible]. i'm an artist

activist from iran. i moved here to study. i started working in sit em sysd did food running. i got to manage small and large events throughout my career in the service industry. after receiving a lot of overwhelming amount of support and encouragement. i was encouraged to start my own business finally. it's always been a place for immigrants and artists with lots of cultural events performers that come to the street. it just was a perfect place to be. the amount of community out reach in the past year. since i took over the property from the previous owners.

i've received their input and many suggestions that they had. of course i'm happily committed to being a strong community member. i'm providing daytime hours which is one of the concerns as well as nighttime hours. a regional store in front of the property and not eliminating even after i go through change of use. also we're talking about-who provide vegan and vegetarian cooking classes for neighborhood families. our menus will be multi lingual as well as signage. a fourteen item commitment letter that speaks more to what

our commitment is to the community. i strongly believe that it will bring a lot of positivity to the neighborhood and add jobs and give back jobs to the community that is actually really suffering a lot of loss in jobs and specifically restaurants. about 60% of restaurants are going out of business. i think ar c ana is going to provide that opportunity for the local force.

>> caller you have three minutes. >> hello. can you hear me? >> we can. thank you commissioners for giving me the opportunity and time to put forth the business. i believe the conscious effort will help direct through advance stage of social development and result in something of a more satisfying culture by per perm

permeating-offering seasonal produce and during these most desperate times it's what we need more than ever. it will open many new opportunities not only for the people offering their services but also by supporting small local businesses, trading and serving local goods. a dining scene open late night. and providing a space for artists, musicians to share. it will deeply-inspire all the others. most importantly it will be home

to celebrate the community of the city giving people a chance to come together and cherish our multicultural generation. i'm a firm believer in the a approach and what it has to offer to the neighborhood. it will be extremely valuable to the community. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> i live in mission district. and i have support the artisan proposal. i found it as interesting idea to mix the cultural and art and promote artists and musicians.

i believe in having a different variety of markets will add up in our neighborhood. include the proposal to open until late at night with veg an anveganand vegetarian food whics very rare to find in this area in this neighborhood. i support entrepreneurship to open a business in this current situation. this is my support to open this business. thanks. >> thank you. >> hello. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> okay. my name is natalie. i'm a big supporter of a ar c aa

and its mission. she is an incredible owner and business owner. she a kind and warm hearted person and it will translate into her business and be very inclusive and intentions of bettering the community. as a minority business female business owner this is a demographic that is under represented. she is is the perfect candidate to bring people back into the community. i'm also an artist and have lived in the mission and feel like something like a late night vegan and vegetarian restaurant is something that is lacking. i know myself and many people

will be eager and enthusiastic to visit an establishment like this and the quality it will bring to both the etail store re front to take away goods to a variety of different people and backgrounds and classes. i think that this is something a lot of people will be excited about and just as far as the artistic and musical side. a prays likplace like this thati disciplinary it will create new community members and the creative culture that is so vibrant and special and unique to san francisco. i'm fully in support of this establishment and just wanted to express my gratitude and

appreciation for ar c ana as a business owner. that's all. >> thank you. >> pledged to it keep visible while giving food back to the community's homeless. it will provide a safe place for

all members of the community. by allowing them to have a kitchen open until 2:00 a.m. this will give the community a place to enjoy. this will be relaxing and calming as opposed to a bar that serves only alcohol. that will not be the idea behind this. the founder is a minority woman whose vision includes equality. i respectfully urge you to proceed with approval with the application. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> hi. thank you commissioner for having us and letting us speak. i want to speak on behalf of the project. i support having affordable late night vegetarian and vegan food

options. i respect having the business run by musicians and artist. i respect the focus of the project. i'd like to speak to her character as a business owner. they are passionate and considerate and community minded. having worked underneath them before i can say they would be an absolutely wonderful employer. they are encouraging and caring and kind. for these reasons, i support the opening of ar c ana. >> thank you. >> hi commissioners. happy to be here today. i'm a resident of the mission.

district nine. i'm really supportive of the business-sorry. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> okay. there's just weird feedback. i'm a bar tender in san francisco. i'm really supportive of this project. i think it would be really great to have the opportunity to get off my shift when they end at 11:00 p.m. or midnight and have the opportunity to go back to my neighborhood and get a healthy vegetarian or vegan meal. this is an area where the mission is lacking. there aren't a lot of meal options that are healthy or sustainable. covid has been a really dark time for san francisco. this project would be a wonderful opportunity to come

out of the covid crisis and uplift minority business owners. especially queer business owners. as a colleague and friend they've been a amazingly considerate business owner. i've seen their knack for expetionaexceptional customer s. they will continue to make long lasting impressions in both their professional and personal relationships. i want to fully state my support for the project. thank you for your time. >> thank you.

caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony? >> i think you just unmuted my line again and i just spoke. >> i apologize. thank you. go ahead caller. >> hello? >> yes. >> can you hear me? >> we can. >> thank you so much commissioners for your time. i felt this was really

>> clerk: thank you. >> hi. my name is angel, and i'm a friend of naz, and i feel like

this would be a really good addition to the mission. it would be really good for me to go here. a lot of really healthy vegan food. i support na, and she's she'll kind, and the restaurant would be really good. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. caller, you can submit your testimony. >> hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> thank you. i'm rowena, and thank you for this opportunity to talk about

this project. i know na through another project, and i'm an -- i think this platform just really, really help just people with their hidden voices to just have some places to be like, like, heard and, like, seen. and i think that's a great opportunity, and also, the different aspects of that, which is one about the healthy food, which i think it really mattered at the same time with also art, music, and other aspects of this great project. and i feel very unique that kind of spaces in the

community, especially at this time. so i have a lot of say about na, to, because she's really a great leader, manager, and also artist, and i think it adds a lot of value to this business. thank you so much for this opportunity, and yeah, that's it. >> clerk: thank you. >> hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> fantastic. my name is nadia, and i'm friend of naz, and i am iranian and vegan. i think being a vegan in san francisco, it's been really hard and challenging for me to

go somewhere where they provide vegan food and that it's, like, nice and also they provide good food and it's a safe place. i am here to support naz. i have known here a long time. we went to the same school, and she is very honest. she's very hard working, and i know that she's been trying to make this something that would also benefit the people, especially in the mission neighborhood, yeah. so just very excited about this, and i also wanted to thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. my name is alexandra, and thank you for allowing me to speak.

i believe there's a need for more vegan and vegetarian options in the mission. i believe there's only one restaurant that i'm aware of that's vegan, and it's quite overpriced. the mission is one of my favorite parts of the city. it's a lively hub for music and a wonderful mix of cultures. however, i believe there's a need for late-night entertainment that serves the community in a different way that serves artists from a different it will occur. i'm an immigrant artist myself, and i would like to see more

opportunities for people from all backgrounds, various opportunities. i am in full support of extending the possibility for artists to showcase their work. i don't believe there is a need to limit in any way the opening hours or especially the possibility to eat healthy and enjoy a glass of wine later into the night. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony? hello? >> hello. my name is jamay, and i'm a local business owner, and i'm here to support naz. i want to emphasize how

difficult it is to start a business, having gone through it myself, and i think we should give her the opportunity and allow her to operate longer open hours is very important. i think that naz and khanna should have the same opportunities. it's only fair that you can go out and dine and have an opportunity to eat somewhere like this. so thank you for my testimony. >> clerk: hello. >> hello. my name is perla martinez, and

i grew up in the mission district. growing up, the mission has definitely changed, and the reason why i'm calling is because i am in support of arcana. i am a mother of an adult who is now a vegetarian. when we come back and try to get vegan food, there's not many options. there's one that's kind of overpriced. as a latina, single mother, it would be easier to support my child as a vegetarian but also a lot of new happenings now. people are learning about nutrition now, and learning to be vegan, vegetarian.

i think that's a way to support the new generation that's coming, the classes that are available, for kids to learn. myself, i had no idea what to do when my daughter said i'm vegan, mom. the need for a vegan restaurant is in high demand. also for a mom, the opportunity to go out and listen to local artists and have a healthy meal, i think that would be beneficial to our community. and i think i mentioned this, i'd like for it to be affordable, which is something that naz has mentioned all along. i think it would be very helpful. i support this not only for the community but as a mom that wanted to support their child. i think this is a great

opportunity, and i support arcana and their mission. i hope you guys consider giving arcana a chance. growing up in the mission, this is very important to me and my family. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. >> hi there. my name is eric, and i feel very passionately about this for several reasons. one being san francisco's soul is essentially multiculturalism. it's something that's in the forefront of a lot of our minds, especially in light of our climate. the fact that she's pushing

options that would include rather than exclude is something that i don't see a lot of in the mission as far as options. to be able to provide a healthy option, but continuing the options that san francisco has been built on i feel is very important to consider, and i strongly support arcana, and i appreciate your time. thanks for listening. >> clerk: thank you. >> yes, hi there. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> my name is claire, and i live in the bay area. naz is an artist.

she's done just about everything. i don't know if you've had the experience of seeing the iranian culture, but it's one of the warmest i've ever experienced. i'm really open for the idea to have naz having something open that you can literally go and spend some time with friends and just go and enjoy an mission, and i think the mission can benefit from some of this, too, having the vegan options and all of that. i really feel passionate about this. this art and having a place for people to call home. i'm all in support of this, and i really look forward to it. so thanks for listening. i really appreciate it.

>> clerk: thank you. commissioners, that will conclude the public portion of this item. the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: first, i'd like to congratulate naz in her proposal. i'm wondering if you do have a

community liaison. is that something that you've already identified? if not, i'm still around. >> clerk: sorry, commissioner. i'm trying to juggle this new platform. i need to unmute her. >> commissioner imperial: that's okay. okay. naz, you're unmuted. >> thank you. hello. thank you, commissioner imperial. i will be the community liaison myself. >> commissioner imperial: okay. it's great to know that you're really committed, and this is [inaudible] and it's the community that will be your first server, so i'm really appreciative of your effort to really include community input, as well, and to provide

affordable, diverse vegan cuisine, so i'm looking forward to it. >> awesome. thank you so much. >> commissioner imperial: so i'm not sure if other commissioners would -- would comment, but i would move the motion to approve. >>. >> vice president moore: i seconded the motion. >> clerk: oh, thank you. very good. if there's nothing further, there's a motion to forward with the following conditions.

[roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6-0. that places you on item number 13 on your discretionary review calendar, 2019-022450 drp-02, a discretionary review. david, are you ready? >> yes. >> clerk: we know you have weak internet issues, so you might want to turn off your video. >> okay. does that sound any better? >> clerk: yeah, you're very clear now. >> excellent. good afternoon, president koppel and members of the commission.

david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review, building application 2019.1121.7915 to construction a horizontal addition basement crawl space to a habitable floor area and exterior facade changes to an existing single-family home. the existing building is categorized as a category c, no historic resource residence. there are three requesters. wendy wong, the adjacent property to the southeast, the proposed project, and singh

prasad, resident to the northwest of the proposed project. [inaudible] -- due to height and depth of the proposed alteration, decrease of view, as well as concerns regarding construction safety related to soil disturbance and destabilization of the structure and foundation. their proposed alternative is to reduce the number of decks or lower the height of the deck. the second d.r. requester is concerned that the proposed design is not in scale with the existing houses due to the proposed height and depth and will create safety concerns due to destabilization of the soil

and foundation. the proposed solutions are to lower the height of the deck and lower the building. to date, the project has received no letter in support of the project and one letter in opposition of the project. by reflecting the scale, mass, and open space of the surrounding buildings in an accessible manner. construction and safety issues related to soil and foundation design are not within the purview of the planning department to regulate, and as staff deems, there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review. this concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to turn it over

to my d.r. requesters. thank you. >> clerk: if the first -- sorry. i was on mute. if the first d.r. requester can raise your hand, i will unmute them. you need to president press star, three. okay. very good. you are unmuted, and you will have five minutes. >> all right. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. this is david wolf. i'm legal counsel to both of the d.r. requesters. these are neighbors on teither side of her adjacent property. mrs. wong has lived in her property for 26 years and has

enjoyed the light, air, and other aspects of the existing development and design. it dates back to obviously world war ii era, and i might note, to my knowledge, this is one of the house if not the first house on the street to have been proposed for significant remodelling or change of facade. the -- the proposed structure, we have found that the design that we were presented with encroaches on the midblock oversight results in loss of light and shadowing to mrs. wong's property as well as loss of view and encroachment on the existing states between the

building, which is demonstrated in some photographs in my proposal. this is not acceptable, and she maintains it's outside of the r.d.g. for san francisco. the second d.r. requester is mr. sanil prasad. he's opposed also to the project. he has similar issues to mrs. wong and her husband, which have been presented to you. these include the loss of open air, space, and light. in addition, his concerns, which i think mrs. wong would also share, prasad's concerns included the possibility for soil movement and foundation undercutting as a result of this. i know this may not be within the planning department's purview, but since we probably have the project sponsor with

us today, i'd like to bring that up to him. we discussed that previously, and arrived at kind of a consensus or are kind of in agreement as to what needs to be done to remedy these issues. we'll probably consider that outside the planning commission. it's not within your purview, like you said. mr. prasad's concerns are like wendy wong's concerned, and we'd just like the project to be toned down, taken down a notch. i've noticed in one of the proposals submitted by samsami samir azizi, who's the owner of the property, they state they have lowered the height,

reduced the mass, and reduced the square footage. but i see here that in the original permit application to 311, the building depth is 5'5 th that doesn't look like reducing the mass of the building or anything has been done to the building. in the original 311, the original building height is 17' 4'', and it's still 17' 4'' in

the d.p.r. i'd like to have an explanation. i'm not out here, beating the drum posturing, but i'd like to have a solution leaving my people with as much open space as possible and as much open space and light as possible. that concludes my presentation. >> clerk: great. and you were presenting for both d.r. requesters? >> that's correct. >> clerk: very good. commissioners, we should go to the project sponsor. project sponsor, if you could raise your hand by pressing star, three, i will unmute you.

go ahead. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is samir azizi. [inaudible] in last two months, i tried to meet with the d.r. requester in the hopes to better understand the project, and the only response i receive so far is the sent response in writing. from the beginning, our goal is to make sure that the proposed project meets the regulations and san francisco building code and also follows residential guidelines. as you see on slide one, the proposed project followed the midblock pattern.

the horizontal addition is confined to 5 feet on the back and 3.5 feet pop out on the south side. therefore, it would not affect the property and shadow of the adjacent properties. second slide, please. please note the proposed house is 10 feet at minimum from the north neighbors, and 13 feet from the north side neighbors, which is usual when it comes to construction that we do. the construction is modest and necessary to accommodation the a.d.u. given at the ground floor. slide three, please. as you can see, the current -- the current gap between these two homes are 13 feet and

change on the north side and between 13 feet to 16 feet on the south side. here is the interior addition. the proposed project would not provide greater mass, and it will be 10 feet at the narrowest point. it's within the 30% of the required rear yard line. next slide, please. at the basement level, the wide area is the lowest part of the main unit with opportunity fore the family -- for the family to enjoy the back yard.

slide six, please. here's the first floor that will be altered to -- for a kids' room. next slide, please. the second floor will be altered to hold the proper living area, kitchen, and dining room. right about this area, couple of steps up, property sits for master bedroom. based on the feedback that we received from other neighbors, we are requesting a gabld roof which decreases the overall height. next slide, please. this is the existing facade. one story on left-hand side and one bedroom over garage, which

is the two-story portion. slide ten, please. this is the proposed front facade. another portion of the stucco will be replaced with woodsiding to upgrade the building appearance on the street side, and this shows the existing height of the building. we are decreasing the roof line about two to 3 feet. this is a rear elevation envelope. [inaudible] slide 13, please. this is the elevation facing

mrs. wong's house to the south. blue line indicates the approximate location of her house and finestration, and next is the proposed elevation on her side. slide 15, please her. here, we see the blue line showing prasad's house, and elevation of his house. here is the proposed elevation of our house. same as our neighbor with proposed construction. slide 16, please. you can see the extent of the existing deck and the existing roof, and the next slide,

proposed section. slide 18, please. this is the proposed section. as you can see on drawings, we are keeping the a.d.u. as minimal to keep an unnecessary amount of excavation. this wi the d.r. requesters are worried about their homes, which is understandable, but please note that the ground is not steep, and we are committed to follow all the latest code regulations provided by the building department to make sure that we can build the needed square footage and a.d.u. unit. thank you for your time, and i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, we should take public comment. members of the public, if you wish to address this matter,

you need to press star, three to request to speak. i have a couple of callers. caller, are you prepared? >> this is david wolf. >> clerk: oh, i'm sorry. >> i believe you unmuted me. >> clerk: yeah. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is steven courier. i'm a neighbor of 326 windy way. i'm speaking in favor of this project. i know it's a great project, i know that i've had work on my house done, which is almost behind 326. some of the comments that were made -- i trust that you've

seen my letter in the attachments to that letter. i think both of these d.r.s are unfounded. i think most of it was to delay the project to its fruition. two of the things that i'm really, really concerned about, 320 winding way, mrs. wong's -- the pictures that i sent to you are just a disaster for this neighborhood. it's a public health hazard, it's an environmental hazard with the water heater in the back yard, two toilets, two abandoned cars, a pile of wood that's dried out, could cause a fire. it's also in a p.u.c.-pg&e easement which is behind the houses on drake street, behind the houses on winding way.

the second house on winding way, it's also of public interest, and also, the public does know there are two illegal units in that property. somebody had turned him in i guess a couple of months ago. i feel that if you live in a glass house, please don't throw rocks. if you're doing something illegal, like these two illegal units at 330, they should become legalized, which the building inspection department is working on. and at 320, you know, that whole property needs to be cleaned up. so my partner and i, ken colanni, we are totally in support of 326 winding way. thank you. >> clerk: great. thank you. commissioners, i have no other public commenters, so we should go to the d.r. requester for a two-minute rebuttal.

>> yes. hello once again, commissioners. david wolf speaking. i don't have much to add here. i -- the message from steve courier, since i don't know who he is -- i think i do, but with respect to the alleged illegal units in the property, i've spoken with the city of san francisco regarding these, and they're not separate units. they are part of accessory bedrooms in this house. they don't have kitchens or bathrooms. i beg to differ with him on that topic. since i haven't had a chance to brief this thoroughly, that'll be the extent of my reply or rebuttal to that particular comment. and i would just encourage the

board to consider the welfare of the two d.r. requesters, having lived in their property for 26 years or more being able to enjoy the premises that they've been in so long without any intrusion in their is serenity. so with that, i'll conclude, and thank you for your assistance in this matter. >> clerk: thank you, mr. wolf. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> not much to add. just the height reduction that we mentioned is not a -- is not just advertisement. the height has been reduced,

and the other thing, they do not affect the height of the building. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, this matter is before you. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i have very carefully reviewed the application, and i have carefully reviewed both d.r. requester's comments, and i don't seem to be able to see how those comments actually apply because what's before me is actually a very modest, a very small addition to a home. i like the idea of using the crawl space, which was the suggestion of senator wiener when it comes to a.d.u.s.

i like everything, and i'm in full support of it. >> president koppel: is that a motion? >> vice president moore: that is a motion. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: seeing no further comments, there is a motion to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. and will place us on item 14 for case number 2016-014777-drp-02 at 357 cumberland street.

>> good afternoon, jonas, can you hear me? >> clerk: david, we can. >> good afternoon, commissioners. david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for d.r. review, public building applications 2020.0311.6722 and 2020.031.6723. the project consists of demolishing an existing three-story overgarage and single-family home and construction a new 5,026 gross square foot three story over garage single-family home. it will be 40 feet in height with two parking spaces. there are two d.r. requesters.

roland trego of 348 cumberland, the adjacent property to the east of the proposed project, and the delores heights improvement club. the first d.r. requester is concerned that the project does not conform to the residential design guide lined, articulation of buildings to minimize impact on light and privacy, and the design of rooftop features. that the 311 plans are not code compliant in that they fail to accurately propose the building's true conditions; that the project has evaded the requirement to obtain a proper permit for residential building demolition, and that the ceqa is flawed because it relied on an unstable building description, and lastly, that the roof deck represents a

significant lot of privacy. the proposed alternatives are to limit the footprint of the new and existing building, and to limit the roof deck. the second d.r. requester is concerned that the proposed design is a demolition that is inconsistent with san francisco's requirement to preserve current housing stock, and violates the requirement that all demolitions after december 31, 2011 lists ceqa impacted. their proposal is to deny the demolition and eliminate the roof deck. to date, the department has received 17 letters in opposition and no letters in support of the project. this does not require a conditional use authorization.

the existing house was appraised above the threshold for demonstrable affordablity, which is $2.2 million at this time, and a complete application was submitted well before the regulation change on february 11, 2020. the one-story massing at the rear extends 12 feet beyond the shallow portion of the d.r. requester's building which, combined with the neighbor's side set back south facing orientation, and 50-foot-wide lot was adequately deemed to provide access to light and air and 50 feet of open face. and finally, the location of the 237 square foot roof deck is set back from the adjacent neighbors, buffered by its rear stair hatch and buffered by the

existing features on the adjacent building. however, the project has refined the design to increase the height of the east parapet by 16 inches, screen the roof deck from the adjacent building's front windows and ame ame ameliorate existing concerns. and that concludes my presentation, and i'll turn it over to d.r. requester. >> clerk: d.r. requesters, if you could press star, three to raise your hands, i will unmute your microphones. mr. patterson, are you

representing -- >> okay. am i unmuted? >> clerk: yes. >> okay. is mr. bowen the first one to speak? >> clerk: mr. patterson, your slides are the first ones up. >> you're able to standard with mr. bowen, that would be great. hello? okay. all right. i am ae going to go ahead. -- i'm going to go forward. good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners. the president would demolish a sound home, and the new project would extend from lot line to

lot line and to the rear yard set back line, significantly increasing the massing at the rear of the property. this would significantly impact light and privacy. d.r. is appropriate here because the project violated existing residential guidelines. slide four, please. in particular, existing part of side spacing must be respected. the d.r. requester's home is set back from the property line by proper four at the rear, slide five, but the project requires no corresponding set back by the r.d.g. this would create a mass that looms over the d.r. requester's dining room, blocking light and air. in reality, it will be 8 feet taller than the existing fence,

and at 18 feet fall, it will be closer to a two-story mass. o our -- the d.r. requester's are most using the dining room and patio during the evening in the summer. project sponsor has refused a modest notch for mitigation. second. r.d.g. requires that the roof deck has the smallest possible dimensions, and the project violates that. the roof deck extends 12 feet past the roof line of the upper d.r. requester's home, enable people to look backward and

downward into his home, decreasing right a decreasing light and increasing noise. there are three decks in the yard, but this deck be and should be slated. as a promise option, we request that the deck be reduced or moved backward to the west. >> hello? can you hear me? can you hear me? hello. >> yes, we can hear you. >> clerk: yes, mr. lowe, we can hear you. >> yes. john lowe, architect.

[inaudible] this is obviously, a very dramatic change to what he currently looks upon, and it will cast a shadow on his window and dining room in the summer months. they proposed a modest 4'1" set back, which the project sponsor rejected. [inaudible] regarding the roof deck, we are all aware that roof decks have become controversial due to noise and privacy issues that they can cause. the residential roof deck policy that was written by the commission [inaudible] and so we ask, when we do projects -- is that 30 seconds? sorry. when we do projects, we

actually ask for decks to be moved in different locations, so a good compromise would be to remove his roof deck to the center of the building, eliminating the visual privacy concerns and reducing noise impacts, and the large deck would be moved where proposed or modified, still providing [inaudible] for the large great room. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. mr. bowen, you've been unmuted, and you have five minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is bruce bowen have the delores heights improvement club, dhic. for years, we have worked to protect the delores special use district. we rely on neighbors when proposing a d.r. project. slide one shows the 19

neighbo neighbors opposing the project. during the last five years, we've filed three d.r.s and have settled two, and we wanted to settle this one. existing sound housing which contributes to the built environment that the special use district was designed to protect should not be demolished. this building is sound. in fact in recent years, the owners proposed to renovate it. now we're losing a maintainable 100-year-old home, and they're now proposing to demolish is and replace it with a 5,000 square foot home. this demolition should require a conditional use authorization. second 317 was amended this year to require a c.u. authorization for demolitions of this kind unless a complete

development application was submitted prior to february 11. section 102 of the development code defines development code as any site permit intended for conditional use, so an application for a building permit is part of an application. in this case, the building permit were filed on march 11, after the cut-off date. the project sponsor says it does not require a complete development application because it was proposed in 2019. third, if you approve this demolition, the project should be modified to incorporate two simple, reasonable, and well defined changes. making the notches and removing

the roof deck. the roof deck is a burden on the neighbors and create an intensefication of use that spills over into adjacent properties because of the risk of no privacy. the so-called privacy wall does not address the issues of the roof decks for the neighbors across the street. this is nothing more than a trendy accessory that is a modern nuisance. [inaudible] i'll put it in the context so you can understand the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that helped justify taking d.r. for these neighborly changes. we're facing an on slaught of projects in delores heights. next slide, please. here are the few core blocks of

delores heights. right now, there are almost 30 proposed projects with ongoing horizontal additions. when neighbors in 1970s and 80s succeeded in creating the residential use district, they could not imagine the fight that we now have to put up for small projects, so please deny this demolation or require a c.u. if you approve the demo, please take d.r. and make the reasonable changes requested by the other d.r. applicant and also remove the roof deck. thank you very much. >> clerk: if that concludes

the d.r. requester's presentation, we should take the project sponsor if the project sponsor can raise their hand or their representative, thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i represent the project sponsors, who have lived at cumberland for nine years and raised their two daughters there. they are seeking to renovate their home to make room for their family. their daughters share a bedroom, and they'd like them to have their own room. sero and angelica are working

from home. this is sero's in the bedroom. angelica has to work in the kitchen. the neighbors express a strong desire that cyril and angelica design a home to their request. they've designed a home that has no significant impact on their neighbors. let me turn it over to mr. salco, who can describe this home in more detail. >> commissioners, i'm john salco, and i'm the project architect. i'd like to propose that we move over to slide ten, please. you can keep going. perfect. i'm the project architect. there's nothing exceptional or extraordinary about the project

before you today. it's a single-family home on a 25-foot steep slide lot. it's a reasonable proposal, meant to address the specific needs of this family. it's context al with the adjacent homes -- can you go back a slide, please. it is contextual with the adjacent homes, and it's scaled for the block. the d.r. requester has asked you to disproportionately consider several small items, and we ask you to have a holistic view of the project. if you can move forward a slide, and one move. the steep grade climbs more

than 35 feet from front to back, and creates an additional constraint. next slide. the project sponsor's pursuit of renovation project with another architect, for twoers i can't, at great cost, proposing a rear and vertical addition to create an addition and garage. one it was complete, there was virtually nothing to conserve, and the project would be more expensive, take exceptionally longer, and ultimately provide worst results given the constraints. it was decided to pursue new construction but with input from the neighbors. [please stand by]

>> the dr expressed specific concerns about the privacy from the roof deck sm we found after the construction of the access sky light privacy only obstructed closest to the edge of the disekdeck.

it adheres to all the is i stans and matches all the homes on the block. additionally the proposed project is a single story in the yard. by comparison two stories in this area the western neighbor is a full story higher on the project. the sponsor specifically chose not to build a fourth floor

floor due to those concerns. they did not want to have a fight. as shown, the proposed story and viewed from the yard, below the dr's requesters light-the proposed one story rear if as f. as seen from the dr requesters perspective, the southwest facing facade the rear is completely uneffected. a raised garden beyond. the dr requester purposely included images standing so close to misrepresent the actual conditions. the much larger south facing

yard. next slide. >> we understood we had ten minutes for this presentation. >> w you do have ten minutes? >> that was the five minute marker? >> that was the min nine and a f minute marker. >> in all likelihood dr requester would install a matching fence on his side. screening from view with only three foot visible over the fence. ten foot fence hides the vast majority of any presence of the house. from a different perspective of eight foot and ten foot fences. next slide, please.

additionally, the fences and growth property line shared with properties has significant impact of the sun which is not shown in the requesters photos. this growth on the dr requesters property already is tall as the ten foot fence. we can see that relation in this photo. it's casting it's own shadow. it does not represent a meaningful change. the dr requester is asking you to focus on the tiny corner on his home his much larger home and larger yard. he says his light is effected

for two doors of twenty. from a home of two stories. our project is primarily subgrade until the rear attached on two sides to access the southern light. he is fully detached on the double wide property with two stories leaning over our one story house. in reality our project is boxed in by the homes on each side. his own two decks look directly over our property. i was here first is not an argument for fairness. it's not an argument about a code issue or property rights. he is complaining about a minor change with minimal impact. it does not meet the standards of dr and is no way

extraordinary. we have thoughtfully and reasonably put our project together. because the dr requester said he does not want the privacy screen we offered, we ask that you do not take dr and approve the project as submitted. >> good afternoon commissioners, i live with my wife and three daughters. >> that is your time. and you will have a two minute rebuttal. at this time we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to press star three to get into queue to speak smghspeak. i will take the first caller. we do have a couple. you'll have three minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. no neighborhoods council and

land use commission. i'm calling in regards to the dr requester. this is clearly a project that is out of scale. i understand that those height sz a special place with buildings and lots that cannot necessarily be cookie cutters. in particular, this lot has been as the project sponsor mentioned, the dr requester has a double lot. but what they didn't tell you is that the dr requester's home has an far had only point fifty five at best f. do yo. if you do the calculation, they are proposing to build something with an far of close to one point seven. to consider a garage it's closer

to one point eight. that will paint a picture for you in terms of the mass and scale. i believe what the dr requester is asking is for modest nip and tuck. they are not asking for the project to be completely a nilet sure if a roof deck is appropriate. for one, we know that roof decks in san francisco are pretty much useless and used as a marketing tool. i'm not claiming the family is not going to stay there, i am questioning the use of a roof deck. as many people have said during

this particular hearing about this project, as well as many others before them, roof deck rz a nuisance. for the most part they are not being used and particularly around this neighborhood which is not too far from my neighborhood, you don't see very many roof decks. i urge you to take dr and reduce the mass and scale of this project and do not allow for the roof deck. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> hi. thank you commissioners for this opportunity to speak. i live in the adjacent home, i

oppose this project simply because it's a victorian property and would be a waste of structural sound property. the roof deck that simply does take mine and my family privacy as well. please note that there are no other residence on the street that has a roof deck including the construction that's been going on on our street for the past several years being designed by the same architect. i also wanted to let you know i have also-my own home was remodeled about six years ago and-they had the same concerns regarding the cast of shadow and also light with regard it my

project and i kindly knocked the top level of my rear extension in response to their concerns because i truly believe in the community and being part of giving back to our neighbors having a friendly neighborhood. i have lived and grown up in san francisco for forty plus years. i've lived in this neighborhood for twenty five years and continue to live in san francisco for that reason because this is my city. i'm not one of those neighbors that's going-that has come here and leave san francisco for economy or politics that's san francisco. i urge you to do not allow the demolition. they can redesign just like i

did five years ago. thank you so much for the opportunity again to speak today. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. thank you for this opportunity. i live and work in the proposed new development area. i'm opposed to this development for several reasons. the owners are proposing to demolish a very attractive victorian home which is one of the only left on the block and replacing it with an extraordinarily large contemporary home which impacts other neighbors on the street. they have not sought neighbor input or concerns. they were very resistant and

combattity at thcombative at th. they have not incorporated any of the concerns into their submitted plans. they have a very large rear expengs that wilextension that n impact on at least one of the adjacent homes. they have opposed a free standing roof deck which allows visibility into the adjacent homes and window ses. s. it also allows large gatherings. large gatherings noise and smoking. the plans include other decks and include a large deck off the living room which would have

excellent city views. this together with easy access together with a rear yard woul r the home. there's no reason a roof deck should be approved. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. thank you very much. good afternoon commissioners. i live on twenty first street several blocks away from the project. i oppose this project and want

to comment on several aspects of it that effect the broader neighborhood. they worked with the supervisor to amend section 17 to the code. this commission supported correcting that inequity. i thank you for that. as you heard this demolition should be reviewed under the conditional use process. it feels like gaming the system. i believe that sends a message to others that they can maneuver to remove their dmo demolition m c u in the future. this is not a tiny house on a tiny lot. the project sponsor proposes to build a five thousand square foot house on a standard lot. the sponsor can have a very

enjoyable home while accommodating these two relatively simple changes. i can't comment on the technical impact of the east exterior changes. however removing the roof deck does not deprive the sponsor of the open space. they have a rear yard of yearly 1300 square feet. removing a roof deck doesn't present hardship. it will eliminate a nuisance for the neighbors on the block not just for the dr requester. in two recent projects sponsors have removed proposed roof decks and made exterior changes in response to input from neighbors. i'm not sure why these sponsors cannot be neighborly as a prior

commenter said and accommodate these requests. i speak today for balance for the home owner and adjacent neighbors for a broader neighborhood. i can't understand why they haven't accepted these reasonable changes. i ask you today to help us achieve that balance. please take dr, remove the roof deck and order the changes to the exterior. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. everything has kind of been said. most of my thoughts have been said. one thing i want to add is that there really wasn't much reach out to the adjacent neighbors. for one, we never got a status study on our property where we gave him a shadow study we drew back our property. we cut back our roof line.

the fact that they are demolishing a hundred year old building under the current environment is kind of crazy. i'm in complete support of the dr. i hope the planning commission will ask the project sponsor to work more openly with the neighbors and the historic district. thank you. >> thank you. caller, i just want to make sure you haven't had an opportunity to speak already. i feel like i may have overlooked you. did you already speak, sir? commissioner that's will conclude the public comment portion of this item. we should hear the rebuttals. mr. patter son i will unmute you

first. >> thank you commissioners. ryan patter son. with all due respect to a talented project team. the sponsor is simply not acknowledging the context of this project. in particular the sponsor's renderings are their own renderings and shows how it would put the patios into a cave. if you look at the eight foot fence or if you look at the sun study which is at page 174 of the staff packet. you can see clearly the scale of this project relative to the neighbors and in particularly my client's homes putting them into a cave. the dr requester is not asking for this project to be denied entirely. we're asking for a very minimal

accommodation. to proserve a little quality of life for the space and dining room. a four foot deep notch at the rear. one percent of the project square footage. it's quite modest. their wall alongside that space at the rear would be 14 to 15 feet tall for one story. that's five feet above a hypothetical ten foot fence as they've argued. the distance-there are no planned to replace it. the roof deck should either be bleeted odeleted or shifted bac. this is a minor change with minimal impact. that minimal impact really doesn't hurt the project. it's a new proposal, new build and can easily be accommodated.

we appreciate your consideration. >> thank you. you have two minutes. >> ar are you forfeiting your rebuttal? let's go to the project sponsor. you have two minutes. project sponsor can you raise your hand, please. there you are, actually. i found you. you have two minutes. >project sponsor?

>> you may still have me unmuted instead. >> it does not effect that but thank you. >> oh, hello? >> yes. >> okay. you have two minutes. >> project sponsor appears to chastise us on minor areas of the project. it's precisely what can make a project a better neighbor. in a neighborhood that is experiencing historic change. by focusing on smaw on small ree changes. the sponsor-the roof deck with decks. they are a reasonable amenity. roof deck rz s are a burden and

should be removed. this property has two decks and a patio. the neighbor has a couple of decks. nobody is having a problem with those decks. it's the roof decks that should be removed. thank you. >> thank you. okay. project sponsor. you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you. can you go to slide 34, please. i want to put this in context. we are all about try to go wrkik with the neighbors. that's why we didn't do the vert addition that the neighbors didn't want. we tried to stay low to minimize

any impacts. the fact that-the claim that roof decks are a nuisance, they-all my clients want to do is enjoy the same kind of amenity as their neighbors. both neighbors have north facing decks off the top story of their home. if we're talking about noise and smoking, there's no substantive difference between a roof on the deck and a roof on the top floor which both of the adjoining neighbors enjoy. we worked hard with the staff to create a project that was compliant with not just the letter of the law but with the spirit of the residential design guidelines. we did create a project with the neighbors input that presents no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance it create dr. the issue of the cave next door

that you're looking at slide 34, the so called cave is right where that arrow points down. that effects one window to the side. that same room has four south facing windows. the house enjoys a huge rear yard. the impact here is just a slight impacts at certain times of the year to that one window. the same impact if we had a fence with vegetation on the property line. thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. commissioners that will kn conce the public hearing portion of this matter. the matter is now before you.

>> i have a question. mr. winslow. the permission when we see a large-is looking for an adu, could you briefly describe to the commission why we are not able to see a adu on this particular building. >> sure. first and foremost an adu is always voluntary. we do advise project sponsors that it's looked upon favorably to provide additional housing to the district. in this case, the size of the project considering that the garage is submerged and the second floor and third floor are

only single-probably limit the ability to accommodate a reasonable size adu. it's always up to the willingness of the project sponsor to incorporate that. >> is there anything in this particular site, i looked at it and i thought that the grade was very steep. would aw agree it would be very difficult to achieve that any way. >> that's why effectively two floors of this project are single aspect. the garage is primarily submerged with only the open to go the street. second floor is also simila simy disposed to the area of this. the project sponsor stated it's 400 square feet which is only

six hundred square feet larger than their existing house. they are proposing to accommodate their growing needs. i don't think we pressed the issue for an adu too hard. >> mostly it is a commission asking. i think you explaining puts the project into a different battery. it is a large home. what i'm looking for is an acknowledgement of neighborly gesture. i'm say thag becausing that becf community opposition. it's resonating the community is comments are making about the

rest of the neighborhood. i will refrain from any final judgment until i hear other commissioners weigh in on the subject matter also. thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you. i have a question to the architect of the project spons sponsor. in your presentation, you explain as to why it should be a demolition. i'm wondering if it also explores instead of demolition allerratiodemolition.have you es

well? >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> so the project sponsor spent two years and nearly a hundred thousand dollars with another architect pursuing with another architect. the nature of demolition of the house-the nature of alteration of the house caused for several areas-the entire foundation was being removed. secondarily the rear extension required us to remove that portion. lastly, the pitched roof filled with several or eight

dormers-that's the pictures you saw of the young girls under the eves of the roof. the combination of those things and the significant expense of those processes ends up producing something that's a worse result, more expensive and worse for the neighbors because of the time change. what we ended up doing with the project is if you want to do these things the best way is to stay with the existing size of the house. it was very carefully looked at and thrurll thoroughly looked a. >> as i'm reading the historic background of this house. it was built in 1909 and has

gone through many alterations. with this kind of structure that's why i'm like maybe it needs more of just alteration and set backs that doesn't need to have a demolition. my thing from here is that listening to the community's input as well is that it is, you know, if it's going to be a demolition had has to go through the conditional use. for me, i would rather take a dr for renovation instead but not for a demolition. i would also respect the process and the policy that we have here in the planning department. that's my comment as a

commissioner and would like to hear other people's perspective as well. >> can we respond to that? >> i concur with staff's analysis and prepare support with what is recommended by taking dr and doing the extension to the height of the para pit. >> i'm along the lines with commissioner. >> i agree with commissioners. i'm not seeing exceptional circumstances here. it feels like the architect

together with the applicant tried to minimize the height of the project to lower the overall impact. i do think the wall should be increased to allow for more privacy. i would take dr's recommendation by the planning department. >> is that a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> i unfortunately would not be able to support that. it's a slight modification with a four by twelve notch which would be a neighborly gesture that we have seen many many times. we would also either move the roof deck as was suggested to the center of the roof or eliminate it all together. if that is not together,ly not suppor, i willnot support the p.

could i ask him to point to his ideas about moving the roof deck further into the center of the roof. i would also like to ask with a general policy that the commission supports one third of the roof, the deck seems to be rather large. this deck has a- >> i wasn't expecting anything. >> there's a constant interruption of voices and people, i wish people would turn off their mic phones microphone. it's difficult for me to concentrate on what i'm saying. >> do you want me to respond to commissioner moore. >> go ahead. >> could we have slide number

11. i can't see the screen because it's very slow in regard it that. this was the thought about preserving the roof deck but just shifting it back so that it would be on the side of the bedroom versus it being so forward, i believe. because there was going to be a para pit wall by the highlight and also the fireplace is actually not a tall thing at all. it's been replaced with a gas unit. they would still have very excellent views from there. clearly direct north views. i think this would alleviate a lot of the problems. the issue then is the large sky light would have to be moved or relocated or redone in some fashion to get natural light into the middle of their building. it's a very elegant design.

it's very uncompromising modernist design. i think this would go a long way towards solving the issue and removing the issues that have been brought up. >> i think you answered my question. you eloquently described it's an interesting building. these minor tweaked that you outlined are easy to do and if the rest of the commission would support those adjustments, i would support the project. i'm asking who made the motion whether these are amenable. they do not impact the liveability of the building. they indeed help with the aesthetics and the fit with the neighborhood in a much better

way. >> commissioners. hearing no further comment or requests to speak. i have a motion that has been seconded, should i call to question? there's a motion that has been seconded to take dr and approve with staff modifications. (roll call) so moved.

that motion passes five to one. that concludes your hearing agenda today. i congratulate you to a successful mie graduatiosuccess. >> thank you. >> see you next week. >> we're adjourned. >> see you next week.

>> ever wonder about programs the city it working think to make san francisco the best place to work and will we bring shine to the programs and the people making them happen join us inside that edition of what's

next sf sprech of market street between 6th is having a cinderella movement with the office of economic workforce development is it's fairy godmother telegraph hill engaged in the program and providing the reason to pass through the corridor and better reason to stay office of economic workforce development work to support the economic vital of all of san francisco we have 3 distinctions workforce and neighborhood investment i work in the tenderloin that has been the focus resulting in tax chgsz and 9 arts group totally around 2 hundred thousand square feet of

office space as fits great as it's moved forward it is some of the place businesses engaged for the people that have living there for a long time and people that are coming into to work in the the item you have before you companies and the affordable housing in general people want a safe and clean community they see did changed coming is excited for every. >> oewd proits provides permits progress resulting in the growth of mid businesses hocking beggar has doubled in size. >> when we were just getting started we were a new business people never saturday a small business owner and been in the bike industry a long needed help in finding at space and sxug the

that is a oewd and others agencies were a huge helped walked us through the process we couldn't have done it without you this is sloped to be your grand boulevard if so typically a way to get one way to the other it is supposed to be a beautiful boulevard and fellowship it is started to look like that. >> we have one goal that was the night to the neighborhood while the bigger project of developments as underway and also to bring bring a sense of community back to the neighborhood. >> we wanted to use the says that a a gathering space for people to have experience whether watching movies or a yoga or coming to lecture. >> that sb caliber shift on the street is awarding walking down

the street and seeing people sitting outside address this building has been vacate and seeing this change is inspiringing. >> we've created a space where people walk in and have fun and it is great that as changed the neighborhood. >> oewd is oak on aortas a driver for san francisco. >> we've got to 23ri7b9 market and sun setting piano and it was on the street we've seen companies we say used to have to accompanying come out and recruit now they're coming to us. >> today, we learned about the office of economic workforce development and it's effort to foster community and make the buyer market street corridor something that be proud of thanks to much for watching and tune in next time for

>> main menu press star 3 to raise your hand. to access the help menu. >> clerk: [roll call] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen, this is the recreation and park commission meeting -- what is today -- august 20, 2020. just a few notes, note that due to the coronavirus -- excuse me -- due to covid-19, the health emergency and to protect the board members and the city employees, city hall is closed.